Kansas City vs Saint Louis

I was looking at a pic of Saint Louis the other day, and I was wondering if people think that they or Kansas City have a better skyline. Kansas City looks like it has more noticable high-rise buildings downtown, also One Kansas City place is taller than any building in Saint Louis (by about 60 feet) and even taller than the arch by a mere 2 feet. Do you think Kansas City or Saint Louis has a better skyline, and which one has more high-rise buildings downtown (that are noticable)?

Don't forget that KC has perhaps the most underrated stadium in baseball (and perhaps all of sport).

Kaufman is a gem, and if the Royals stick for another 30-40 years, we'll treat it with similar reverance (or as close as possible) as we do now to Fenway and Wrigley. It appears to be one of the only post-war/pre-90's stadiums that is capable of entering into that strata.

But in shear volume of high-rise buildings (like exceeding 100 feet), it looks like Kansas City definatley has more (that are noticable-- and not ugly or crappy like Saint Louis. Just looking at the pics and counting, KC DEFINATLEY has more of them. Does anyone agree?

PS! Those pictures of KC aren't very good. Actually they changed the links. Here's the links to the pics I was talking about:

Anyways, by just simple counting, KC has about 23 noicable tall buildings (in front) and Saint Louis bombs out at 18. I think they have more stuff downtown in STL plus the arch, but they do not have as many tall buildings in their skyline as KC does.

But in shear volume of high-rise buildings (like exceeding 100 feet), it looks like Kansas City definatley has more (that are noticable-- and not ugly or crappy like Saint Louis. Just looking at the pics and counting, KC DEFINATLEY has more of them. Does anyone agree?

PS! Those pictures of KC aren't very good. Actually they changed the links. Here's the links to the pics I was talking about:

Anyways, by just simple counting, KC has about 23 noicable tall buildings (in front) and Saint Louis bombs out at 18. I think they have more stuff downtown in STL plus the arch, but they do not have as many tall buildings in their skyline as KC does.

I am a bit confused by your methodology, are you counting what you see? Do you have any statistics from a reputable source?

From a shear opinion point of view KC’s downtown looks nice from a distance; our KC office has a beautiful roof top garden just south of the loop, at twilight downtown looks breathtaking.

However, at street level I would have to give St. Louis the edge; more shops and restaurants more storefronts easier to access (not hemmed in by a loop) more interesting architecture.

Even in older buildings the KC building culture that survived seemed to not celebrate detail for the era it was built in with some notable exceptions of the New York Life building and some other exaples of Art Nuevo (some of the few in North America) in the south end of the loop. KC had some very ornate buildings but the city embraced the Modern and Art Deco early and the amount of demolition was staggering, check out “Kansas City Style” from you local library to see what I mean.

There has also been an unfortunate amount of demolition recently for building the new entertainment district.

Now how about this question; why is KC obsessed by how it stacks up to St. Louis?

She has been a bad girl, she is like a chemical, though you try and stop it she is like a narcotic.

There has also been an unfortunate amount of demolition recently for building the new entertainment district.

Now how about this question; why is KC obsessed by how it stacks up to St. Louis?

As far as I can tell, the demo was minimal (although i would have preferred that they had incorporated the scattered half dozen or so buildings that were demolished) and most or all of the blocks that are being built upon was surface parking.

i don't see STL and KC as being similar enough to have this discussion ad naseum, and would rather KC look towards Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, etc as a "measuring stick." Some in KC apparently have an inferority complex that is aggrivated by a semi-endearing semi-distasteful and obnoxious nostalgism/ provincialism prevalent in the STL metro (I'm from STL, and was afflicted myself. )

As far as rating skylines (which are nealy worthless in my opinion), i far and away appreciate the KC skyline over the STL skyline. Downtown KCMO looks almost "citadel" like from certain angles, as it sits on a bluff towering over the bottoms. The STL skyline and setting is pretty anemic minus the arch, though street level architecture is more impressive.

As far as I can tell, the demo was minimal (although i would have preferred that they had incorporated the scattered half dozen or so buildings that were demolished) and most or all of the blocks that are being built upon was surface parking.

There were about 6 or 7 buildings torn down of significance including 2 big losses - The TWA and Basketball buildings which were quite large; there was also the loss of the Law building, though not directly associated with entertainment district. That is not minimal, yet there was zero in public comment that I observed.

i don't see STL and KC as being similar enough to have this discussion ad naseum,

Agreed

and would rather KC look towards Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, etc as a "measuring stick."

I am not sure what a good comparable would be (or even is it is necessary)

Some in KC apparently have an inferority complex that is aggrivated by a semi-endearing semi-distasteful and obnoxious nostalgism/ provincialism prevalent in the STL metro

While St. Louis can be incestuous, I would say the level of civic pride is no more or less obnoxious then other places, any evidence pro or against would be antidotal at best and not worth the observation. I think the roots of KC’s ire lie in more self interest.

(I'm from STL, and was afflicted myself. )

I am glad you got better

As far as rating skylines (which are nealy worthless in my opinion), i far and away appreciate the KC skyline over the STL skyline. Downtown KCMO looks almost "citadel" like from certain angles, as it sits on a bluff towering over the bottoms. The STL skyline and setting is pretty anemic minus the arch, though street level architecture is more impressive.

Agreed

Last edited by Howard Roark; 06 Jul 2006 at 8:57 PM.

She has been a bad girl, she is like a chemical, though you try and stop it she is like a narcotic.

That is the hotel that ACSP was at last year. I stayed there... very nice. I like KC as a whole as a matter a fact, very impressed. But, to your question... St. Louis all the way... much bigger "city" feeling, sorry.

"Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

Though Kansas City and Saint Louis are in the same state, they are as different as any two cities in the country. Kansas City is younger, more spacious, smaller and more western in nature. St. Louis is much older, considerably larger, more crowded and more eastern in nature. Call it hometown bias, but I don't think there is any comparison here. St. Louis is a more significant city/metro any way you slice it. Just a few competitive edges:

STL metro: 2.8 million
KC metro: 1.9 million

STL: an ever-expanding light rail rapid transit system
KC: no rapid transit, and no plans for rapid transit

St. Louis, being the much older city, offers a lot more in terms of architectural diversity, cultural institutions and local character. I do like Kansas City, but I think it more favorably compares to places like Columbus and Indianapolis rather than a city like Saint Louis.

And for all those who judge a city based on skyline-- what a frivolous basis! The great cities of Europe have relatively NO skyline compared to American cities and they are the greatest cities in the world! Tall buildings do not a city make.

Though Kansas City and Saint Louis are in the same state, they are as different as any two cities in the country. Kansas City is younger, more spacious, smaller and more western in nature. St. Louis is much older, considerably larger, more crowded and more eastern in nature. Call it hometown bias, but I don't think there is any comparison here. St. Louis is a more significant city/metro any way you slice it. Just a few competitive edges:

STL metro: 2.8 million
KC metro: 1.9 million

Actually STL has about 2.5 or less in their metro

STL: an ever-expanding light rail rapid transit system
KC: no rapid transit, and no plans for rapid transit

That is not true. KC has the metro and the MAX. Although not as good as light-rail-- it is sufficient.

STL: NHL hockey team
KC: No NHL hockey team

True, but we will have an NBA or NHL team with our new Sprint Center. We also have a major league soccer team, which STL lacks.

So? Washington U????? We have UMKC. Although not GREAT it is sufficient. Most people don't go to either city for college in MO anyway, they go to MU in columbia. Washington U isn't that great. Saint Louis U isn't bad, but any GREAT college is out east or west. You aren't going to find anything great in missouri.

STL: Forest Park
KC: nothing that compares

OOOOHHH Parks. Who cares? How many people We have something that STL will never have, the Plaza, which is a hell of alot better than any shopping district u have over there-- and is the only thing like it in the world.

St. Louis, being the much older city, offers a lot more in terms of architectural diversity, cultural institutions and local character. I do like Kansas City, but I think it more favorably compares to places like Columbus and Indianapolis rather than a city like Saint Louis.

And for all those who judge a city based on skyline-- what a frivolous basis! The great cities of Europe have relatively NO skyline compared to American cities and they are the greatest cities in the world! Tall buildings do not a city make.

Paris? That has a pretty nice skyline, and so does London.

I think Saint Louis, although under some development, is not as good as KC. It is much poorer and alot of that 2.5 million in their metro are poor people- WHICH does NOT add to the "greatness" of STL. Also the KC metro is growing at a faster rate than Saint Louis, adding about 400 thousand people since 1990- and our downtown is growing faster also. Saint Louis might be older, but I think by 2030 our metro AND city are going to be larger than STL based on current growth trends. Saint Louis has the arch-- which sucks by the way. You go up to look out on a crappy skyline and the biggest geto in the tri-sate area- East STL. We have the liberty memorial, which I think is just as good as the arch. I really don't like Saint Louis-- ive been there and would much rather live in KC. Both cities CAN be compared-- even though they are different.

That is not true. KC has the metro and the MAX. Although not as good as light-rail-- it is sufficient.

Uhhh...okeeee. The MAX is a bus. A bus. It's not rapid transit, and it sucks compared to MetroLink.

Originally posted by en08

True, but we will have an NBA or NHL team with our new Sprint Center.

Bullsh*t. KC is not a big enough market to support that many major league sports. And exactly how do you know that you will get those teams? Oh yeah, you don't. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Originally posted by en08

So? Washington U????? We have UMKC. Although not GREAT it is sufficient. Most people don't go to either city for college in MO anyway, they go to MU in columbia. Washington U isn't that great. Saint Louis U isn't bad, but any GREAT college is out east or west. You aren't going to find anything great in missouri.

They say ignorance is bliss, and they're right. You're living in a bubble, man. Best Universities according to US News & World Report:

Best Medical Schools
1. Harvard University (MA)
2. Johns Hopkins University (MD)
3. University of Pennsylvania
4. University of California–San Francisco 4. Washington University in St. Louis
6. Duke University (NC)
7. Stanford University (CA)
7. University of Washington
9. Yale University (CT)
10. Baylor College of Medicine (TX)http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gra...rank_brief.php

Go ahead and tell yourself that UMKC is "sufficient." What about more than sufficient? KC can't compete. Wash. U. is one of the best schools in the country like it or not. UMSL and UMKC are mediocre commuter schools at best. Saint Louis University and Webster U. are also reputable, both in STL.

Originally posted by en08

OOOOHHH Parks. Who cares? How many people We have something that STL will never have, the Plaza, which is a hell of alot better than any shopping district u have over there-- and is the only thing like it in the world.

Any true urbanite can appreciate the value of urban parks. You sound really stupid dismissing it. And you're right, KC has the Plaza, St. Louis doesn't. But St. Louis has plenty of other places where suburban soccer moms shop, they just tend to be indoors. That's all the Plaza really is-- an outdoor mall for suburban soccer moms.

And all this talk about skylines is really old. Tall buildings don't make a city great. KC has a better skyline than Washington, DC too. Is KC a greater city? hmmmm.... As I said before, KC favorably compares to places like Columbus and Indianapolis, but not to Saint Louis.

Although St. Louis is better known on the east coast and almost no one thinks of Kansas City, I found that I liked KC much more so than St. Louis.

St. Louis reminded me of my hometown of Baltimore. A gritty urban city with a rich and proud history that has fallen on hard times, and has fallen a long, long way to the point where rebounding to its original conditions still looks unlikely. St. Louis has suffered from significant economic and population losses (over half its peak population, I believe) and large stretches of the city is nothing to write home about, and despite the few good tourist attractions and the beauty of the Forest Park section, the city as a whole radiated a lackluster, somewhat downtrodden, and negative mood.

Kansas City, on the other hand, impressed me. It isn’t perfect and certainly not as large as St. Louis, and while not exactly a boomtown on the scale of Phoenix or Houston, actually came across as a nice, normal, thriving city. The older architecture of downtown KC was quite distinctive, and nothing in St. Louis can compare with the magnificently planned and maintained Country Club District with the Plaza at its heart, and the quality of the Nelson Atkins Gallery’s collection is comparable to St. Louis Art Museum (and the NA actually has one of the greatest Caravaggio paintings in the world). One got the very distinctive impression that KC is one of the few cities left in the US where a high quality of life can be had in a pleasant city for not too much money.

I completely agree with the above posters in that KC should be compared to Denver or Columbus~white collar cities that are still healthy and relatively prosperous places, while St. Louis’ peers are Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, old industrial titans fallen on hard times and living off past glories.

^It's really a matter of preference. I personally would MUCH rather live in older cities like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis than younger, "more booming" cities like Denver or Columbus. No contest. The older cities exude a character that you simply can't replicate in younger cities. Give me grit or give me death!

Metro Area Numbers are pretty meaningless when comparing cities unless they have the exact same geography. For example the Census lists Detroit at roughly 4.5 million, but its urban area is comingled with the urban areas of Ann Arbor, Port Huron, and the odd conglomeration of Brighton, Howell, South Lyon. The actual total is closer to 5 million when all of this is considered.

This does not include the half million or so in urbanised Essex County, Ontario, Canada either.

I'd personally not put much stock in US News College reports either. These are weighted highly towards the more expensive and elite schools that hardly any one of normal means or pedigree would be able to attend.

^Oh yeah. those universities on the US News list are really just wannabes. They aren't really good schools at all.

I think your missing my point. I never said they were bad, only that they are unaffordable. I'd rather see universities and community colleges that serve the needs of a region well not be discounted. I believe the focus of education should be on learning something enlightening and/or useful, not spending lots of money.

In many areas regions are poly centric. Detroit is not the only one. There is Baltimore/Washington, and San Jose, Oakland, and San Fran. Metro numbers are based only on an odd convention of the US Census defined urban areas. These bump up to each other. Detroit's market could be expanded to include places like Toledo, Flint, or Jackson for higher order goods and services. Likewise, Elkhart and South Bend Indiana are closer to one another than South Bend and Niles, Michigan but the two metros are South Bend, IN-Niles, MI and Elkhart also invades MI. Not everywhere is an Indy or Columbus. A metro is not a market. What market is Kenosha/Racine, Wisconsin in?? Chicago or Milwaukee??

St. Louis has changed quite a bit for the better since i was a kid riding through midtown in a locked cutlass during the 80s. I have even noticed remarkable changes since i moved from the region 6 years ago, especially downtown. My parents, i don't think, really believe that STL has improved so much this decade.

Kansas City desperately needs a public space on par with Forest Park. Swope park is too isolated from the core, Loose park is nice, but is really a large neighborhood park, not a city wide amenity, and Penn Valley needs a gigantic overhaul.

One of my long term concerns with the STL region is its geologic stability, and all the unreinforced masonry that i love so much. Hopefully the new madrid fault will stay quiet for a while longer.

As far as skyline no doubt St. Louis has the better and more recognizable skyline with the stadium, the arch, the river with the bridge, and the other buildings. That said as a City I prefere KCKS and KCMO...

I really wish I could put my $.02 in but I have never been to Kansas City. I have driven through but nothing more than that.
That said I am surprised by the negative attitude towards STL. There is so much redevelopment and restoration going on here, I am surprised the history and architecture of this City is not more appreciated. I think that so often when I drive through parts of STL, even dilapedated areas. There is a lot on money being poured into neighborhoods and improvements, I think it is only a matter of time that many of the vacant buildings/neighborhoods will be thriving again. I think STL is beautiful, not just the skyline but all of the neighborhoods, all of the huge beautiful homes, all of the brick buildings throughout.

Kansas City reflects what postwar Americans as a whole want: It's a giant suburb without a lot of real dense urbanity. Architecturally, it strikes me as pleasant and unremarkable-with the same kinds of midwestern standard housing types and designs one would see in Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, or Oklahoma City. Country Club Plaza is lovely, but helps suck the vitality out of downtown and serves as a venue for upscale chain store retailing. The fountains and boulevards are very pleasant and make for quite a system, but they are not remarkable in any real aspect of design. Downtown was pretty desolate (it's been awhile) and is a typical corporate tower downtown of bland buildings and megaprojects. I'm sure that as a place to live and raise a family, Kansas City is a mighty fine place.

Nonetheless, I agree with JiveCity: Give me the grit and 19th century charm of Saint Louis anyday. I much prefer the architectural vernacular, the farbic, even if the City is desolate in so many places. Sure, many neighborhoods in Saint Louis may be unrecoverable, but I would argue that the aging 195os suburbia that cities like KC will be facing will have even less opportunity to become urbane and interesting places. Oh goody, beige brick strip malls! Let's create a loft in a 1957 supermarket! Throw in the Forest Park area and the Central West End-there is NOTHING in Kansas City like it.

I do think BKM misses on KCs Jazz and Depression era heritage which i would argue gave KC a defined character and creative spirit that lives on to this day, although KC physically lost a lot during the great orgies of destruction. kc did have it's own relatively unknown CWE like area in midtown, which has lost almost all of its fine grained street level urbanity on Troost, and has fallen very hard indeed, unlike the CWE. today the remaining apartment buildings are almost all section 8.

Great. Well at least KC's MSA is growing much faster than yours. I can tell by living here and looking at all the construction around. By 2025, I bet our MSA will surpass yours in population.

Uhhh...okeeee. The MAX is a bus. A bus. It's not rapid transit, and it sucks compared to MetroLink.

The MAX is fine. Our taxpayers would rather have a much better arena and wait a few minutes.

Bullsh*t. KC is not a big enough market to support that many major league sports. And exactly how do you know that you will get those teams? Oh yeah, you don't. I wouldn't hold my breath.

You are an idiot. KC has a large MSA-- it has 2 million people (according to the 2005 census estimate). Plus it's growing fast. And we have a brand new arena that many teams would like to play in. We are a perfect city to host a major league basketball or hockey team. We had them before, earlier in the 70's and 80's when we were smaller but lost them because of a lack of support of fans (which isn't going to be a factor now with our larger population and awsome new arena and revitalized downtown). Plus, according to the wikipedia entries on both cities, we have the same number of major leauge sport teams already. Saint Louis lacks a major leauge soccer team (which we have-- the Kansas City Wizards), and we lack a major league hockey team (which you have-- the Saint Louis Blues).

They say ignorance is bliss, and they're right. You're living in a bubble, man. Best Universities according to US News & World Report:

[eliminated list to shorten quote]

Go ahead and tell yourself that UMKC is "sufficient." What about more than sufficient? KC can't compete. Wash. U. is one of the best schools in the country like it or not. UMSL and UMKC are mediocre commuter schools at best. Saint Louis University and Webster U. are also reputable, both in STL.

Many cities in the country that are better than Saint Louis and Kansas City both lack good colleges. Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Denver all lack "great" colleges. Those are usually in the old cities-- and Saint Louis is one of them. So what? You have a good college-- many big cities lack good colleges.

Any true urbanite can appreciate the value of urban parks. You sound really stupid dismissing it. And you're right, KC has the Plaza, St. Louis doesn't. But St. Louis has plenty of other places where suburban soccer moms shop, they just tend to be indoors. That's all the Plaza really is-- an outdoor mall for suburban soccer moms.

You again, are an idiot. The plaza is one of the most unique places in the world. It is a collection of hundreds of high-end shops and restaurants all concentrated a single area, sorrounded by beautiful spanish architecture that you will find nowhere else in the world but spain and high-rise apartments, hotels, and some mansions on the outskirts of the plaza (not part of downtown). Nothing in Saint Louis even COMPARES to the plaza. And rich, sophistocated people shop there, not "soccer moms" (although there are several rich women bitches that shop there all day- lol). Anyways, Malls do not have the upscale shops like the plaza does, nor the beautiful and unique architecture like the plaza. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING in saint louis even compares. Mabye a mall is a great place for your poor people (which saint louis has a lot of), but it's nothing like the plaza. The plaza is not an "outdoor" mall-- it is way more. It is an upscale SHOPPING DISTRICT with a unique atmosphere and architecture (which combines Spanish and modern architecture [modern being the high rises around it]) found nowhere else in the world.

And all this talk about skylines is really old. Tall buildings don't make a city great. KC has a better skyline than Washington, DC too. Is KC a greater city? hmmmm.... As I said before, KC favorably compares to places like Columbus and Indianapolis, but not to Saint Louis.

First off, Kansas City lacks one thing that Saint Louis has. The largest craphole GETTHO in the enitre TRI STATE AREA- EAST SAINT LOUIS!!! Poor people actually constitute alot of your MSA's population. Also, Kansas City's average income is higher than that of Saint Louis citizens.

Secondly, the skyline is the "defining" picture of an American city. True, this is nt the same in Europe (because their cities have defining landmarks and unique architecture) or cities in the US with defining landmarks. But the High-Rises are the "unique" architecture that American Cities have. In the US the skyline is the picture of your city. If you have an ugly picture, (like Saint Louis), that leaves a bad impression on visitors and tourists. When someone thinks of Saint Louis, they probably think of the arch sorrounded by the (few) tall buildings around it. When you think of Kansas City you think of either barbecue, the plaza, or OUR tall (much better, according to http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skyline2.html) skyline. The same goes for every other major american city (except Washington DC which has the capital). If you go to google and type in Kansas City, Saint Louis, Detroit, Houston, Boston, New York (especially new york), or any other major city in the US you will probably get alot of pictures of the skyline. Why? Because it's the defining picture of your city. It is a very important aspect of a city because the downtown is the "anchor" of a MSA. If someone around the world looks at your skyline, that will leave an impression of your city. It is an important WOW factor of a city.

You are right about one thing. Kansas City can never compare to Saint Louis-- you can't compare a great place like Kansas City to some shithole like Saint Louis

^Keep telling yourself that bro. You really don't know what you're talking about, and it's substantiated by the fact that you keep referring to the "Tri-State area" when talking about St. Louis. "Tri-State"??? What's the third state in the St. Louis metro area? Anyone who knows STL knows that it's the BI-STATE, not Tri-State. MO and IL. That's it. You probably haven't even been here.

And you keep going on this skyline thing, yet you don't even consider the fact that nobody, I mean NOBODY, would recognize KC if they were shown a picture of it, outside of a few online nerds like us and people from KC. It looks like Anyplace, USA. Do you really think some guy in Moscow would be able to tell Kansas City apart from Memphis just by looking at a picture of it? Nope. At least St. Louis's "weak" skyline has a distinguishing feature. And any true urbanite doesn't care about how many tall buildings a city has. That's not what makes cities great. It's the meat of the city that counts. Again, look at Washington, DC or the great cities of Europe-- very, very few skyscrapers.

KC's transit is pathetic. They can't pass a light rail measure there because the voters there think small. It's like a big town rather than a major city.

The Plaza is overrated and played out. It's a bunch of wealthy soccer moms with nothing to do. I'll concede it has nice architecture, but that doesn't cut it on its own.

UMKC? ha. I'll let that speak for itself.

In fact, I'll let your entire ignorant post speak for itself too. HINT: you should visit a city before you start posting ridiculous "facts" about it. My last post neutralized everything you said before, and now you just sound desperate.